I likely will not be participating. I have some difficulty with the author’s not taking a literalist view of the creation story, and don’t know what other deviations from orthodoxy might also come up. I do appreciate, though, the author’s sensible plan of going through the historical books to give a framework on which to hang further Biblical study.

“Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Maccabees, Luke, and Acts of the Apostles. The idea is to read these books first in order to get the “big picture”: a narrative context in which to read the remaining books.”

I likely will not be participating. I have some difficulty with the author’s not taking a literalist view of the creation story, and don’t know what other deviations from orthodoxy might also come up. I do appreciate, though, the author’s sensible plan of going through the historical books to give a framework on which to hang further Biblical study.

“Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Maccabees, Luke, and Acts of the Apostles. The idea is to read these books first in order to get the “big picture”: a narrative context in which to read the remaining books.”

I do not understand how literal interpretation of the creation story is in any way orthodox. Call me a liberal but I see it as an allegory to explain the fall of man.

I do not understand how literal interpretation of the creation story is in any way orthodox. Call me a liberal but I see it as an allegory to explain the fall of man.

I used orthodox in the sense of “adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.” The books I’ve read on the subject indicate that belief in a creation time period of six literal, 24-hour days is the traditional view, is the most straightforward reading of the text, and has had the support of the majority of Christian theologians throughout history. I know that different opinions have long existed, but they were not the commonly accepted ones. Presbyterian minister Kenneth Gentry adheres to his church’s confession of faith in being a six-day creationist, calling this “the historic, traditional interpretation of Genesis 1.” banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?473

I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t view the Genesis account as an allegory if you wish, but I don’t think that’s the “orthodox” view.

I used orthodox in the sense of “adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.” The books I’ve read on the subject indicate that belief in a creation time period of six literal, 24-hour days is the traditional view, is the most straightforward reading of the text, and has had the support of the majority of Christian theologians throughout history. I know that different opinions have long existed, but they were not the commonly accepted ones. Presbyterian minister Kenneth Gentry adheres to his church’s confession of faith in being a six-day creationist, calling this “the historic, traditional interpretation of Genesis 1.” banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?473

I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t view the Genesis account as an allegory if you wish, but I don’t think that’s the “orthodox” view.

I think what you’re describing is a more Protestant view… that doesn’t make it orthodox. :shrug:

I think what you’re describing is a more Protestant view… that doesn’t make it orthodox. :shrug:

Well, the books I’ve read take their quotes much further back than the beginning of Protestantism. Not that there weren’t alternate views around, including allegorical ones, but the literal sense of the passage seems to have been dominant.

Well, the books I’ve read take their quotes much further back than the beginning of Protestantism. Not that there weren’t alternate views around, including allegorical ones, but the literal sense of the passage seems to have been dominant.

Our understanding of the world has changed quite a bit since St. Ephraim’s time… We understand science a lot better than we did 1700 years ago. I think that’s where the difference lies for Catholics – they’ve been able to adapt as human knowledge evolves. We don’t need to take the Genesis story literally to still understand the truth in what it’s trying to express.

Our understanding of the world has changed quite a bit since St. Ephraim’s time… We understand science a lot better than we did 1700 years ago. I think that’s where the difference lies for Catholics – they’ve been able to adapt as human knowledge evolves. We don’t need to take the Genesis story literally to still understand the truth in what it’s trying to express.

If you’re curious - our Lutheran Church holds to the ‘traditional’ literal 6-day viewpoint. We can easily resolve this with science, by remarking that while God created everything in 6 day-long creative acts, those effects don’t have to take place in 6 days, as God is beyond space and time.

If you’re curious - our Lutheran Church holds to the ‘traditional’ literal 6-day viewpoint. We can easily resolve this with science, by remarking that while God created everything in 6 day-long creative acts, those effects don’t have to take place in 6 days, as God is beyond space and time.

Well put - God is Truth, and if our science is true, then there can not be disagreement. Our point of view is not God’s - we’re sort of like a frog in the bottom of a well who thinks the sky is the whole world.

*Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth ? tell me if thou hast understanding. * Job 38:4

If you’re curious - our Lutheran Church holds to the ‘traditional’ literal 6-day viewpoint. We can easily resolve this with science, by remarking that while God created everything in 6 day-long creative acts, those effects don’t have to take place in 6 days, as God is beyond space and time.